Voice of the people (letter).

Judges Are Not In A Popularity Contest

July 30, 1994|By Robert T. Palmer.

CHICAGO — Although I commend Bob Greene and the Tribune for focusing public attention on the major issues of child welfare highlighted by the Baby Richard case, I am troubled by the way in which everyone concerned has dealt with Justice James Heiple, who authored the opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court in the case and upon the court's denial of rehearing.

As a trial lawyer, I can disagree with the outcome in a case such as this, yet not cast personal aspersions on or seek to cause public embarrassment to the justice who happened to author the opinion-especially one speaking for a unanimous court. Sadly, Mr. Greene and your reporters/editors have felt no such constraints.

This has made them appear to be petty and vindictive. It also has indicated that they misperceive the nature of the judicial process. They have done a disservice by passing on this misperception to your readership and encouraging disrespect when, actually, respect is merited.

Judges are not the same as governors or legislators. They are not supposed to do the bidding of popular opinion. Rather, they are supposed to ignore it. Their sole duty is to apply the law impartially, according to due process, regardless of the personal unpopularity which they may suffer as a result. It appears as though this is precisely what the Illinois Supreme Court has done. Even if we do not agree with the result, we should be reassured that the process is not readily susceptible to journalistic pressure or legislative afterthought.

The court should not be faulted for applying the law as it was written. I am disappointed that the General Assembly and governor did not act sooner to amend the law, particularly since the well-published Baby Jessica case illuminated the issue many months ago. Nevertheless, it would be the most dangerous precedent imaginable to now allow them to change the final result in a case between two private litigants. If this could be done, no lawsuit would be safe from being decided on the basis of political clout and media pressure.

These points were, of course, touched upon by the court in its order denying rehearing. Unfortunately, you obscured them by focusing on the angry and personal tone of the remarks and running a snide profile on their author, Justice Heiple. In doing so, you made the sleazy choice of entertaining, rather than educating.

If Heiple comes across as a prickly personality, perhaps that is because his job values forthrightness more than likability. A judge is not required to ingratiate himself with the public. At any rate, I can understand Heiple's anger at stupidity, unprofessionalism and just plain bad manners. Moreover, I respect him and his fellow justices for defending the appropriate finality of the reasoning and result of the Illinois Supreme Court in a duly determined case. In doing so, they have defended nothing less than the interity of our legal process.

I suggest, therefore, that your writers and your readers reconsider whether the refusal of the Illinois Supreme Court to rehear this case was, as you imply, a demonstration of childish stubbornness or whether, just maybe, it was a demonstration of uncompromising integrity.